^■-^r 



<.^y. 









^ ^^ 



^.^ y 




Class V\n 

Book ±AAIi 



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFAIRS. 



SPEECH 



HON. GEORGE W HENDEE, 



OF -VER-ZMOnSTT, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



JULY 1, 1876. 



•f WASH\^ 



^VASH:ii>rG-TOisr, 
1876. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. GEOEGE W. SENDEE 



On affairs in tlie District of Columbia. 
• Mr. HENDEE. Mr. Speaker, I approach the discussion of District 
of Columbia matters and the various questions growmg out of the 
investigation which has recently been concluded by the Committee for 
the District with a full knowledge of their importance and a deep 
sense of the responsibility I must take in giving expression to my 
views. During this session of Congress there seems to have been a 
remarkable thirst on the part of members to dive deep and to the 
bottom of the official conduct of every department of the Government. 
Every official act of every public man who has been connected with 
the Government for the last fifteen years must be examined, and if 
possible fraud and corruption found and held up to the gaze of the 
country. This seems to have been the established rule of the major- 
ity of this House since its organization, and I admit that the rule has 
been vigorously, unrelentingly, and sometimes rashly executed. There 
has been no safety here or elsewhere for prominent public men, for 
however pure and deserving they may have been the wicked and in- 
visible hand of scandal has seized its pen for their destruction and m 
some instances has done its work successfully. _ 

Sir, we have come to that era in the life of this country when the 
partisan mind is better satisfied with scandal than truth ; when ex- 
ultation and satisfaction rather than sadness and regret follow the 
downfall of the prominent public man. We sit here to-day and see 
perhaps our nearest neighbor standing forth an upright, valuable, 
and honest man. He enjoys our confidence and that of the country. 
We believe him to be a m^odel in example and statesmanship ; and 
to-morrow, yes, even to-morrow, we maybe pained with the announce- 
ment that he has been guilty of crime, has betrayed his trust for gam, 
and is unworthy to further hold his seat or our confidence. The mere 
announcement is sufficient, and the partisan mind grasps its new food 
with rare relish ; and he who yesterday was and is the peer of the 
best of us is brought low or put under a cloud, where he must remain 
for long months and perhaps for life. He may be innocent ; yes, he 
is innocent and the proof of this fact is most plenary and satisfactory 
to the fair and unprejudiced mind ; and yet his traducers never let 
go, and he is followed by them till his happiness, his usefulness, and 
his good name are wrested from him. He gradually loses his friends, 
his influence, his social position, and finally reaches the low level of 
obscurity, where he must remain. 

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that never before in the history of this 
Government has there been such a general distrust in the public mind 
of all public men ; never before has it ever taken less to arouse the 



4 

suspicion of the people ami lead them to believe as true tlie most idle 
and unfounded rumor ; never before was everybody on trial. And so 
general has become the desii^e to investigate, and not only to investi- 
gate but to find out something that shall create a sensation, I fear that 
undue and questionable measures are sometimes taken by parties who 
have these inquiries in charge. In times of great political excitement 
and bitter party effort for power, when one party has nothing to lose 
and everything to gain, and the other nothing to gain but everything 
to lose, I fear, yes, I maintain, that the accused official has but little 
guarantee for a fair trial and can have but little hope that justice 
will be done him. 

How, let me ask, do we try men here ? Our committees are made 
up of seven democrats and four republicans. The men on trial are 
generally republican officials. The triers are party adherents. They 
are sent here as such and they are inclined to act as such. As a gen- 
eral rule in the trial of criminals before OTir courts the accused has 
the sympathy and protection of the court or jury till his guilt is es- 
tablished by legal evidence, but in the trial of j)olitical offenders here 
the committee does not try as a judge or jury, but from the outset 
assumes the attitude of a prosecutor, and it is not to be wondered at 
that the jiroceedings are irregular — inadmissible testimony received 
and wrong conclusions reached. In trials before courts the judge is 
free from outside influence and pressure, while here there is no limit 
to such pressure and influence. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in times 
like these I have not the highest regard for or the greatest confidence 
in the conclusions of committees which are designed to affect directly 
the result of a great and fierce political struggle for the control of 
the Government. 

And when, Mr. Speaker, I gave myself to the candid and patient 
contemplation of the speech of the chairman I became more fully 
convinced than before that men who are brought under the ordeal of 
a political investigation cannot expect, except in the most clear case 
of innocence, to receive that fair, unprejudiced treatment to which 
they are entitled or which would be awarded them were they tried 
by impartial men and in accordance with the strict rules of law and 
evidence. The speech of the honorable gentleman from Missouri ex- 
hibits that bitterness, that personal feeling, and that hatred toward 
political opponents which seem at this time to so fill the breasts of 
many gentlemen on this floor. With such a feeling, and with such 
means as are used in the conduct of these investigations, who, I ask, 
can expect to stand ? Men will do as political enemies what they 
would scorn to db as personal enemies ; and I may be pardoned in 
this connection in referring to the investigation which brings before 
the House these reports and this discussion. 

The committee has been daily at work for more than four months. 
Its members have been diligent and some of them active and zeal- 
ous, and, in order that nothing should be left unknown, unread, un- 
searched that should bring to light fraud and corruption if it existed, 
the committee called about it and to its aid ex-officials, decapitated 
clerks and engineers, disappointed claim agents, defeated creditors, 
and such malcontents as volunteered their services, and the number 
of this class was not small. The books, papers, and records of the 
commissioners and board of audit were at once ordered and put into 
the hands of these men who have had full control over them during 
the whole period of investigation. Scores of witnesses have been 
summoned and examined and many have volunteered their testimony. 
Bankers and business men have been brought from New York, Phil- 



adelpliia, Baltimore, and other parts of tlie country, and I might say 
that no channel has been left untraversed for -pvoot that these men 
could reach or could cause to be reached. The expense to the Gov- 
ernment has not been inconsiderable, and what is the result ? It is 
thiS; that a majority of the committee join in exonerating the com- 
missioners of the District and the members of the board of audit. 
So far as they are concerned no crime has been unearthed, no fraud 
practiced, and no corruption proved. So far as this investigation 
goes they are vindicated as upright men, honest officials, and fully 
worthy of the positions they have occupied. The only charge that 
can at all be brought against them is that they have misconstrued 
the law under which they have acted; that they have exceeded their 
powers; but it is admitted by all, with perhaps one or two exceptions, 
that they have proceeded in good faith, without corrupt motives and 
with the very best intentions. 

The commissioners came into power July 8, 1874, and just at the 
close of a long, tedious, and searching investigation of the affairs of 
the District under the administration of Governor Shepherd. It had 
been advertised all through this broad land that fraud, misrule, and 
gross wrong had been the guiding stars of that administration since 
its inauguration. Of all this, whether true or false, these commis- 
sioners had full notice. They came into power with full knowledge 
of all that was alleged or proven. . They knew the eye of the coun- 
try was upon them, and they kne^v* that, whatever had been the 
character of the reign of the former executive power in this District, 
they would be watched with anxiety and with a hope for sound, 
economical, and honest government hy the whole people. That there 
should be no mistake and that they might be relieved from all sus- 
picion and all doubtful influence, they at once discharged the officers 
of the old government and called about them almost entirely a new 
set of employ ($s. As their powers had been delegated by a recent law 
of Congress and the duties imposed by that law were numerous, 
varied, and important, and involved the expenditure of large sums 
of money, they called to their aid as advisers two sound and trust- 
worthy attorneys, and upon their advice they have universally acted. 
They have expended and disbursed millions of money, and the report 
of the majority of the committee, which I maintain is justified in 
every material particular by the testimony, shows that they have ex- 
pended it faithfully, economically, and for the best interests of the 
District and Government. 

It is not even pretended, sir, by the gentleman from Missouri in his 
report or speech that the commissioners or the auditors, or either of 
them, have ever directly or indirectly received a farthing wrongfully; 
that they have ever had any interest whatever, however remote or 
insignificant it might be, in any contract, claim, or transaction con- 
nected with District aiiairs. The report of Judge Buckxer does not 
even charge corruption, intentional wrong-doing, or even bad faith ; 
and because this is true I am all the more surprised at the indictment 
he has prepared and submitted to this House in the form of a speech. 
I am at a loss to know, sir, what imagination could have preyed upon 
Ms mind that could have brought forth such an unwarranted, malig- 
nant, and groundless arraignment of these gentlemen. His report 
does not justify it and the proof does not sustain it. He talks often 
of Shepherd and Babcock, and attempts to connect these commission- 
ers with them in the conduct of the business of the District, when in 
fact there has never been before the committee one word of testimony 
sustaining such a theory in the slightest particular. Thev have not 



been witnesses, and have not been sbowu to have any connection 
with any contract, claim, or proceeding relating to District matters 
since the new government was organized. 

The gentleman says the contractors have been the old favorites of 
Shepherd and have bonght real estate of him, &c. Now, this is the 
lowest kind of pettifogging. The commissioners had not the power 
to select their contractors. The law transferred to them certain du- 
ties that had devolved upon the Shepherd government and compelled 
them to carry out legal existing contracts, and they could treat with 
none other than those who held contracts with the District on the 
20th of Jnne, 1874, the date of the act which brought them into ex- 
istence. By the law they were compelled to recognize the contracts 
and contractors that Governor Shepherd should pass over to them 
when they should take charge of the government. They had and 
could have no voice in the selection. But, Mr. Speaker, I ought not 
and will not waste the time of the House in commenting upon those 
parts* of the gentleman's speech, which seem to have been born in the 
crazed imagination of some wandering District malcontent. 

Now Jadge Buckner will admit that if his theory of the law of 
June 20, 1874, and the power of the commissioners under it is incor- 
rect, his report and all its conclusions musfc fall to the ground; and 
this j)oii]t I propose for a few moments to consider. There is no pro- 
vision in the act of June 20, 1874, limiting in amount or kind the 
work to be done by the Districi? commissioners. If such a provision 
had been inserted, the responsibility of the commissioners would have 
been definite and its enforcement would have been simple. Nor is 
there any mention in that act of the particular contracts of the late 
board of public works which remained to be completed, nor of the 
number of such contracts. None of the alleged existing contracts of 
that date were declared by the act to be fraudulent and void. Con- 
gress did not undertake to decide how many valid contracts were in 
existence or how much it would cost to complete them or whether 
any were fraudulent, nor is there any indication in the act of an in- 
tention of Congress to limit to a certain amount the debt to be in- 
curred under the District commissioners and the board of audit. 
The sixth and seventh sections of the act make it clear, on the con- 
trary, that the aggregate of the debt was regarded as uncertain. 

Of the seven classes of claims confided to the board of audit, four 
involved amounts wholly uncertain. I refer to the fourth, claims 
existing or hereafter created arising out of contracts of the board of 
public works ; fifth, claims arising out of contracts of the District ; 
sixth, claims for private property taken by the board of public works. 
As I have said, Congress could not and did not fix the limit of the 
debt. 

Now, sir, while, as I have said, the act makes no express limitation 
of the amount to be expended, and there is no implied or absolute 
limitation, either by designation of the particular contracts to be 
completed or by restriction of the District debt to a fixed amount, it 
does most explicitly make it the duty of the commissioners to com- 
plete all valid contracts of the board of public works, to make all 
contracts necessary to the administration of the District law, to ex- 
ecute existing obligations and contracts, and preserve all improve- 
ments begun or completed. The control and charge of the work of 
improvements was given to the engineer, under the general super- 
vision and direction of the commissioners. It was clearly the inten- 
tion of the act of June 20, 1874, to authorize the commissioners to do 
all the work and labor which in their discretion they might regard 
as falling under the powers above enumerated. 



I Tvill now call the attention of the House to the law farther. 

The act of June '20, 1874, must be construed like all other laws, in 
its entirety, to ascertain the intent of Congress, the powers conferred 
Tipon the commissioners, the manner in which these powers were to 
he executed, and the means provided to enable the commissioners to 
execute them. The second section defines the powers with the lim- 
itations; that is to say, the commissioners shall have power to make 
all contracts necessary to the faithful administration of the valid 
laws enacted for the government of the District and the execution of 
existing legal obligations and contracts and the protection or pres- 
ervation of improvements, finished or unfinished. From the nature 
of these powers it is evident that the intent of Congress was to rec- 
ognize as valid and binding the contracts of the board of public 
works which were in existence at the date of the act. But as the 
law makes no provision as to the particular manner in which the 
contracts are to be executed, it is clear that Congress intended to 
leave that to the sound discretion of the commissioners, subject only 
to the general conditions inferable from the circumstances under 
which the act was passed; that the cost in bonds of the execution of 
such contracts should not in any considerable measure exceed the 
cost of executing them pursuant to their express terms and condi- 
tions. 

Now, as to the means given to the commissioners to execute these 
contracts the law makes no provision, except the certificates of the 
board of audit convertible into 3.65 bonds. Unless these bonds were 
subject to the control of the commissioners for the execution of 
the work, it would result that a duty important to the best interests 
of the District, to wit, the execution of the legal contracts of the 
board of public works would devolve upon the commissioners, with- 
out any means whatever placed in their hands whereby they could 
discharge such duty. Such a construction of the law would be in 
violation of every recognized rule of legal interpretation and must 
be rejected. In fact, the chairman of the committee feels strongly 
the pressure of this argument, for he is forced by it into two distinct 
and incouvsistent theories of the meaning of the law. 

His first theory is that the board of audit could recognize no claim 
against either the District proper or the board of public works which 
had not originated prior to the date of the law and which was not 
perfected as a claim at that date ; that the commissioners and board 
of audit were created by Congress in the nature of assignees of a 
bankrupt estate, and that their duty was to fund in 3.65 bonds the 
debts matured and perfected as claims on the SOth of June, 1874, and 
none other, and to wind up all the outstanding business of the Dis- 
trict proper and of the board of public works absolutely to that date. 
This theory negatives the idea that the commissioners had any right 
whatever to incur a dollar's indebtedness after that date, either "for 
the completion of existing contracts or for any other cause. The pay- 
ments made by them were to be made for debts originating subse- 
quent to June 20, 1874, and were to be made in cash. 

His second theory is so inconsistent with the first that it is scarcely 
credible that the two proceed from the same mind. It admits that 
the law provided for the completion of the unfinished contracts of 
the board of public works; also that the board of audit was author- 
ized to issue certificates for work done and to be done, and to deliver 
them according to the contract in each case ; also, that if the work 
was done, was within the powers conferred, and done upon existing 
contracts made by the board of public works, the commissioners are 



8 

not to be blamed for any increase of indebtedness, even though the 
debts should have been piled mountain high. 

The first theory forms the basis of the denunciations contained in 
the speech of the honorable chairman. This is a theory of repudia- 
tion, which rejects every incomplete contract of the District proper 
and of the late board of public works, arrests them absolutely at the 
date of June 20, 1874, requires the measurements of every contract 
to be made up to that date, and leaves the contractor no other remedy 
than to sue for damages. This theory directly contravenes the rec- 
ommendations of the joint investigating committee, that every 
debt, both of the District proper and of the board of public works, 
should be adjusted. Such a theory imputes to Congress the purpose 
to annul by law existing contracts without making any provision for 
the payment of damages to the person injured, and, in fact, making 
it impossible for the parties charged with the District administration 
to pay the damages which might be recovered. I cannot accept such 
a theory. It is inconsistent with the debates in Congress and with 
the respect of that body for established law. If acted upon it would 
have ruined not only the contractors concerned but the reputation of 
the District and of the United States Government for honorable and 
just dealing. 

The second theory is just and sensible. It is the theory of the act 
of June 20, 1874. It is the one acted upon by the commissioners in 
which they have vindicated the integrity of the District and the 
honor of Congress. It is the theory which was indicated by the joint 
investigating committee in that report, and which faithfully carries 
out the recommendations of that report. Congress intended to pro- 
vide not only for thex>ayment in 3.65 bonds of the debt already con- 
t^racted but of the debt afterward to be made in completing the un- 
finished improvements and fully performing legal existing contracts. 
The act of June 20, 1874, shows that it carefully provided for the pay- 
ment of the current expenditures of the government out of the rev- 
enues from taxes, and that it devoted all the proceeds of the taxes 
for the fiscal year 187.5 to certain items of expenditure which did not 
include any of the payments on these incomplete contracts. That is, 
it devoted to specific purposes, not including these contracts, every 
dollar to be raised from the taxes levied. The 3.65 bonds are the 
si:)ecial fund out of which the extension contracts should be paid. 

On this point the gentleman has in fact surrendered his strongest 
point. He admits in terms the power and duty of the commissioners 
to complete unfinished contracts. He says that he does not blame 
them for any increase of the indebtedness properly arising from the 
completion of unfinished contracts, but for the approval given by 
them to the issue of 3.65 bonds in payment. He claims that they 
should have paid either out of the tax revenues or out of the appro- 
priations ; at any rate, in cash. But in the act of June 20 all the 
revenues from back taxes were appropriated to other purposes than 
unfinished contracts; the same act designates what use shall be made 
of the taxes for the fiscal year 1875, and the act of March 3, 1875, 
limits the uses of the taxes for the fiscal year 1876. No permission is 
anywhere given to use a dollar of the proceeds of taxes for completing 
unfinished contracts. Kor is there any appropriation by Congress for 
the purpose. The one of over a million, though couched in general 
terms, is based upon an itemized statement furnished by the commis- 
sioners, under date of February 18, 1875, which contains no item for 
unfinished contracts. No part of this money could be taken for the 
IDurpose. It is true, then, that there was uot one dollar of money placed 



9 

by Congress in the hands of the commissioners to be expended on this 
class of contracts. The usage of the Di:strict and of municipal ad- 
ministration forbade the general fund to be used for that purpose. 

The gentleman then is reduced to this dilemma : he asserts the 
power and the duty of the commissioners to complete the unfinished 
contracts, holds them to exercise the power and perform the duty, 
but denies them the right to pay in the only fund provided bv Con- 
gress. He places Congress in the absurd position of ordering the 
commissioners to complete the contracts while it provides no mode of 
payment. It is clear from the refusal of Congress to permit any use 
of cash for this purpose, and from the absence of any limitation of 
the use of 3.65 bonds, that the latter were intended to be used in the 
payment of the uncertain amount still to be expended to complete 
the unfinished improvements. 

It is unfortunate for the argument of the gentleman that a dis- 
tinguished Senator of his own party, as well as Messrs. Bass, Wilsox, 
and HuBBELL, of the joint investigating committee, interpreted this 
law precisely as did the commissioners, their counsel, the board of 
audit, and the sinking-fund commissioners. This fact was elicited 
by a direct interrogatory propounded to the commissioners by the 
gentleman himself. Their plain answer on this point is treated bv 
him in his speech with a redundance of reprobation, as " a vain and 
artful attempt " and " a weak and groundless effort ;" but it will be 
noticed that the gentleman did not dare to attempt to disprove it. 
The Senator was in the other wing of the Capitol ; why was he not 
called ? Is it possible that his attention was not called to the con- 
curring statement on this point of the members of the board of audit 
and the commissioners. 

With due respect to the gentleman from Missouri, I think his views 
of the law are not more entitled to respect than those of the excellent 
lawyers under whose advice the commissioners acted. 

I will here add the words of the commissioners, as expressed in their 
answer : 

Soon after the commissioners and the board of aiidit assumed their duties the 
question arose as to the power of the board of audit to examine and allow claims 
whicli might thereafter arise by the future performance of contracts made by 
the board of pubhc works and not theretofore fully perfonned. This question 
was one tor the decision of those officers. 

The cognat^e question also arose as to whether it was the duty of the commis- 
sioners and of the engineer in their respective functions to stop "work in progress 
under contracts of the late board of public works which had not been fully per- 
tormed and to prevent the resumption of such work, or whetlier it was their duty 
to proceed witli work under such contracts. Practically this involved the ques- 
tion as to whether streets and sewers should be left in theh theu unfinished and 
dangerous condition over large areas of the city, lia ble to waste and destruction 
putting Me and property in jeopardy, and invoMng the District in danger of 
vast liability at the suit of parties likely to sustain injuries. . Before the commis- 
sioners had decided this question as to their powers and duties, and before the board 
ot audit had decided the similar question respecting their own itirisdiction the 
commissioners m addition to their own counsel, sought the benefit of the views of 
a distinguished lawyer, who was then, and still continues to be, a leadino- membex 
of one branch ox tlie national Legislature, and who had been a member of the ioint 
committee of 1874 which had framed the act of June -20, 1874. The members of the 
board ot audit were present at the consultation, and so also was the counsel for 
the commissioners. It resulted from this conference that the board of audit came 
to tne conclusion that they possessed authority to examine and allow claims aris- 
ing out of tutiire performance of the class of contracts above mentioned : and con- 
tormably to this decision, and as a logical sequence therefiom, as well as from other 
provisions of the law the commissioners of the District came to the conclusiou 
tliat they possessed the power to permit the continued performance of such con- 
tracts, subject to examination of claims thereunder bv the board of audit, and to 
me payment of the contractors, not in monej-, (as provided by the literal terms of 
the contract and as expected by the contractors,) but in certificates of the board 



10 

of audit, (to be issued by that board after due audit of the accounts,) convertible 
into 3.65 bonds. . -, x i xi ^ 

This decision of the board of audit necessarily recognized not only the power ot 
the commissioners, but as well their duty to execute the several classes of contracts 
specified in the second section of the act of June 20, 1874. How they should be 
executed, whether in literal compliance with their expressed terms and conditions, 
or with modifications, (called " extensions,") depended, within the limitations of the 
law, upon the consideration how the public interest would be the better pro- 
moted, which was of necessity, in lar^e measure, if not wholly, an engineering 
problem, to be solved by the engineer ot the District, on whom the technical duty 
devolved by law, of executing the work under the contracts of the board of pub- 
lic works. In practice this was done. The engineer determined the manner 
of doing the work and where to be done, which detemiination he communicated to 
the commissioners in the form of a recommendation, which they approved. There- 
after the engineer supervised and directed the execution of the work. 

The decisions with reference to their respective functions thus made by the board 
of audit and the commissioners are believwdto be not only warranted but demanded 
by the provisions of the act of Juite 20, 1874. 

• ♦***** 

The action of Congress which impliedly ratified the allowance by the board of 
audit of claims which arose under unfinished contracts of the board of public 
works by performance of them after the passage of the act of June 20, 1874. also 
approved the course of the commissioners in proceeding with the performance of 
such contracts. With reference to such contracts the commissioners of the Dis- 
trict were by section 2 of the act of June 20, 1874, vested with the former power 
and authoiity of the board of public works, except so far as limited by the said act 
of June 20, 1874. 'Thus within the limitations prescribed by that enactment the 
commissioners succeeded the board of public works as a party to the unfinished 
contj-acts entered into by the latter board. Except so far as restricted by law in 
their power to make contracts and incur obligations the commissioners might as a 
contracting party and with the concurrence of the other party modify an unfin- 
ished contract with the board of public works. The limitation of law upon the 
power of the commissioners as to contracts and obligations is (see section 2 of the 
act of June 20) against the making of contracts or the increasing of obligations, 
" other than such contracts and obligations as may be necessary to the faithful ad- 
ministration of the valid laws enacted for the government of said District ; to the 
execution of existing legal obligations and contracts, and to the protection or pres- 
ervation of improvements existing or commenced and not completed at the time of 
the passage of this act." 

Of unperformed and outstanding contracts made by the board of public works, 
(and to which the commissioners became by law a substituted party,) modifications 
necessarv to faithful administration of the valid laws enacted for the government 
of said l5istrict, to the execution of existing legal obligations and contracts, and to 
the protection or preservation of improvements existing or commenced and not 
completed at the time of the passage of the act of June 20, 1874, might lawiuUy be 
made by the commissioners. 

In the event of a modification within these limitations, a claim arising under the 
contract as modified Avas recognized by the board of audit as coming within their 
iurisdictiou. It was a claim created necessarily and created after the passage of 
the act of June 20, 1874, and arising out of a contract of the board of public works, 
and therefore it belonged to the fouith class of claims mentioned in section 6 of 
the act of June 20. 1874, which class is as follows : " Claims existing or hereafter 
created for which no evidence of indebtedness has been issued arising out of con- 
tracts, written or oral, made by the board of public works." Unless audited by 
the board of audit, such a claim would, upon a different construction of the act, 
have required to be separated into two branches : one branch pertaining to the 
strict and original letter of the contract and coming within the jurisdiction of the 
board of audit, and the other branch coming within the jurisdiction of the ordinary 
and municipal accounting officers of the District ; and different modes of pa.^Tnent, 
by bonds in the one instance and casli in the other, would have been compelled, in 
respect of these two branches. To have carried out such a Construction of the law 
would have been ptterly impracticable in many if not all cases, and even where 
praclicaljle would have'led to confusion. Besides, the spirit as well as the letter of 
the act of June 20, 1874 requires that claims arising out of contracts with the board 
of public works should be submitted to the examination not of the subordinates of 
the commissioners of the District, filling the position of accounting officers of the 
District, but of a board of, audit, composed of the Comptrollers of the United 
States Treasury and the highest accounting officers of the United States Govern- 
ment — presumably selectedto compose the board of audit on account of their per- 
sonal qualifications as well as their official positions, and on account of their inde- 
pendence as lespects the executive authoiity of the District ; and these officers 



11 

■were invested with authority to employ experts and assistants for such comiiensa- 
tion as they might deem ]>roper. 

In the making of modifications or extensions of contracts of the board of public 
^orks it is but reasonable to presume that the law committed to the executive au- 
thorities a reasonable and fair discretion in relation thereto. And in the manage- 
ment of the "work of repair and improvement of all streets, avenues, alleys, sew- 
ers, roads, and bridges " the commissioners were by law invested only wnth au- 
thority of " general supervision and direction," while the engineer had that direct 
charge and control of the work for which, both in determining what work should 
be done and. in carrying it on, the exercise of professional qualifications is required. 

And in this connection the undersigned say, in answer to each and every inter- 
rogatory relating to improvements and woi^k made or done under their administra- 
tion, payable in 3.65 bonds, whether made or done pursuant to the exact terms and 
conditions contained ia contracts of the board of jmbLic works, or under such ex- 
tensions or modifications as were recommended by the engineer, and which they 
approved, that they exercised the powers only which they understood were con- 
ferred upon them by the act of June 20, 1874, and that they never made nor modi- 
fied any conti-act which was not regarded by them as falling wdthin one of the three 
classes of contracts they were authorized to make, namely, in administration of 
the valid laws enacted for the government of said District in execution of existing 
legal obligations and contracts or necessary to the protection or preservation of 
improvements existing, or commenced and'not completed, at the time of the pas- 
sage of said act ; and they disclaim ever having exercised any power or performed 
any act relating to or in any way connected with the execution of contracts speci- 
fied in the second section of said act or otherwise, or relating to any matter or 
thing since their entrance upon their otfices as commissioners of the District, which 
they did not consider it was their legal duty to exercise or to do and as to which 
they say they always consulted one or both of the attorneys of the Distiict when- 
ever, upon tbe question presented for their decision, doubt occurred to them as to 
how such questions should be legally decided, and, in every case of the submission 
of such questions to the said attorneys or either of them, they decided as advised 
by their said counsel. 

I will now attempt somevrbat to follow the cLairman of tlie com- 
mittee in his speech and to answer the same, and I desire to say that 
my statements will not he based upon rumor, hut upon the facts as 
they appear in the testimony. The gentleman from Missouri has 
taken two cases of contracts, Nos. 582 aud 916, upon which he has 
dwelt at length in attempting to show that the commissioners of the 
District have committed a great wrong or exceeded their authority. 
Now, I wish to state the fact in regard to these two contracts : 

Contract No. 582, dated October 23, 1872, with James W. Walsh, 
provides for grading Eleventh street east between Pennsylvauia av- 
enue and H street north, was recognized by the commissioners Novem- 
ber 25, 1874, under the advice of the assistant attorney, as an existing 
legal obligation, and extension drawn December 7, 1874, recognizing 
Walsh's assignment of the contract to William Hussey, who had been 
found at work upon the street on July 7, 1874. 

For work done upon the original contract under the commissioners 
the cost has been ,'j;27,398.10. 

Under this contract less work was permitted than had been con- 
templated by the board of ijublic works, the grades being changed 
80 as to diminish the amount of excavation over a large area east of 
the Capitol. In conformity with the opinion of the attorney for the 
District that contractors under such circumstances were entitled to 
an equivalent amount of additional work, the extension of April 8, 
1875, was drawn. Under this extension the cost (considerably less 
than an equivalent for the work withdrawn) has been §5,738.66. In 
the grading of the street the curb, foot-walks, and covering of the 
carriage-way were removed and the street left without pavements of 
any kind. The extensions of July 9, July 28, and October 25, 1875, 
were for the purpose of replacing this material and completing the 
improvement of the street. The cost under these extensions (much 
less than would have been the cost of completing the improvement 



12 

upon tlie entire line of the contract) has been $45,823.50. As extra 
work the contractor was directed to lay the foot-pavements upon 
New Jersey avenue, between M and O streets northwest, the grading, 
curbing, and wood pavement on the carriage-way having been com- 
X)leted under the board of public works. It would have been liable 
to injury in the unfinished state of the improvement. Cost, $4,932.76. 
The extension of September 3, 1875, provides for the improvement 
of Fourth street between M and O streets northwest, and N street be- 
between Fifth street and New Jersey avenue northwest. The work was 
important and necessary to complete the connection with surround- 
ing improvements, from which these localities were cat off by the 
change of grade, the streets and avenues being cut down around them; 
cost, |29,0U8.81. 

The total expenditure upon this contract and all of its extensions 
under the commissioners has been $112,901.66. The cost of complet- 
ing the original contract, with the additional amount of grading 
contemplated under it and the completing of the improvement of 
the street within the limits of the contract, in accordance with the 
general plan of the board of public works, would have been $111,- 
562.44 ; besides which an increased cost of $183,812 would have been 
incurred in the grading of parallel and intersecting streets, which 
were also under contract, in order to make them conform to the 
deeper cut which had been contemplated. 

Contract No. 916, dated September 26, 1873, with John O. Evans, 
provides for laying Scharf concrete on the carriage-way of B street 
north, between First and Second streets east ; was reported incomplete 
in the annual report of November 20, 1874. The work at that time 
authorized was completed, but the contract was not terminated. No 
final settlement had been made with the contractor. 

The subsequent extensions of the commissioners increased the 
amount of work. 

This contractor, and after him his assignee, in whose name the vari- 
ous extensions are drawn, controlled the Scharf patent concrete pave- 
ment, one of the two concrete pavements selected for use in the Dis- 
trict to the exclusion of all others which had been tried by the board 
of public works, after a long and careful investigation of their rela- 
tive merits. The extension of May 10, July 5, August 5, August 6, 
and October 22, 1875, provide for the paving of the carriage-way with 
Scharf patent concrete of Fifteenth street, between Rhode Island ave- 
nue and S street northwest, and other streets, upon all of which the 
improvements had been previously completed in other respects under 
other contracts. 

It may be stated, generally, that the completion of the improve- 
ment of these streets, in other respects, necessitated the paving of 
the carriage-way for the protection and preservation of the improve- 
ments made, and that considerations of sound economy dictated the 
use of a pavement suited to the locality, rather than a temporary 
make-shift, of which the cost must be wasted. 

On Fifteenth street, west, contract No. 806, of the late board of 
public works, with J. E. Gregg, dated August 5, 1873, provided for a 
wood pavement, as also upon other streets, but the contractor was 
not allowed to proceed with the work, concrete being substituted. 
This contract (No. 806) provided for an expenditure of $118,096.03 for 
wood pavements, no part of which has baen permitted. On Fifteenth 
street the cost of the concrete pavement has been $26,977.28, and 
uT>on all the other streets covered by the extensions of the commis- 
sioners, $86,682.88. So that a total expenditure is here represented of 



13 

1113,660.16, as against a saving, l»y tlie sui)i)ression of wood pave- 
ment, of ^118,096.03, 

So it will be seen that the course adopted by the commissioners in 
regard to these two contracts has absolutely saved many thousand 
dollars to the District, and that the work as done under them by the 
commissioners will prove far more beneficial than would the work if 
done in exact conformity to the terms of the contract ; and in this con- 
nection I will say there were many contracts in existence when the 
commissioners took charge of the government which provided for the 
laying of wood pavements. Hundreds of thousands of dollars must 
be expended in this work if the contracts were carried out to the let- 
ter. The contracts were binding and the contractors were demand- 
ing the right to proceed under them. It was necessary to pave the 
streets with something. That wood was expensive, unsuitable, and 
of short life, everybody agreed. It was in fact a mere waste of money 
to use wood. Experience in this city had fully established this fact, 
and the commissioners so modified contracts that the best approved 
concrete pavements should be substituted for wood. Now the gen- 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Buckner] says this should not have been 
done, as there was no authority in the law for such a change. I take 
it that all will agree that in this matter the commissioners acted dis- 
creetly and for the best interests of the District. The cost of carry- 
ing out these contracts as modified was less than it would have been 
had they been executed as originally drawn or as they existed when 
the commissioners came into power. The result is that we have good 
concrete pavements where we should have had decaying wood, and 
this with a saving of expense to the Government. And now, I ask, 
are the commissioners to have no credit for this ? If they had ad- 
hered to the letter of the contract and laid wood where they could at 
less or the same cost even i^rovided concrete, they would have not 
only been condemned by the gentleman from Missouri but by every 
gentleman in the House. 

It is true that in modifying some of the contracts, which the com- 
missioners recognized as existing legal obligations, the amount and 
cost of the work was increased, but in others the amount and cost 
was diminished ; and the proof shows that on the whole the cost to the 
Government will be less, as the contracts were executed under modifi- 
cations and extensions, than it would be if the contracts had been per- 
formed in accordance with their original terms and the general plan 
for improvements and within the limits covered by them. I will sub- 
mit a table of cost and estimates that is official and fully establishes 
my statement. The table, with explanations, may be found in the tes- 
timony taken by the committee, pages 142 to 143 ; but to save trouble 
to members I will have it jirinted at this i)oint in my remarks. 



14 



Recapitulation of tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. 

WORK COMPLETED AXD AUDITED. 







Done under the commissioners. 






lis 


Under extensions of 








X 




the commissioners. 










"-I 










1 


111 


lis 

a a'l 


III 








<s 


§^&_. 


•s=«^ 


'Ct^ 






1 
■s 
s 
•a 


a 
a 


nder contracts 
board of public 
contracts and r 
tiou of contracts 


Work upon the m 
their protection 
tiou, aud that o 
provements. 


m 
III 




1 


[2;' 


fi 





<i 


H 


<1 


1 


$3, 624, 000 32 


$2, 560, 853 10 


$280, 660 11 


11, 515, 663, 19 


$4, 357, 176 40 


17, 981, 176 72 


2 


74, 941 98 


316, 124 24 


18, 670 84 


219, 339 90 


554, 134 98 


629, 076 96 


3 


1, 430, 923 74 

2, 548, 291 90 










1, 430, 923 74 


4 


809, 244 23 
(*) 







809,244 23 


3, 357, 536 13 
104, 262 15 


6 


n 


(*) 


+104, 262 15 










7, 678, 157 94 


3, 686, 221 57 


299, 330 95 


1, 735, 003 09 


5, 824, 817 76 


13, 502, 975 70 



WOKK COMPLETED, NOT AUDITED. 

(Estimated in 3.65 bonds at par, as heretofore payable.) 







Done under the commissioners. 




^ 




5 S o 


Under exten-sions 




1 




s 


-►^ S « 


of the commis- 






a 




o 


^a"5 
c«;2a 


sioners. 






1 




o 

a 
p- 

o 

1 

1 


tracts and extensioi 
public works, inclu 
i and repairs under u 
ntracts. 


upon the main sewers 
aeir protection and pres- 
tion and that of adjacent 
ovements. 


Q.g '01} 

a o a 
3 a 

111 






1 
1 

1 


o 


a 




1:L 




fcO 


&0 


a 

a 


III! 




ill! 


1 

o 


2 


1 


^ 


fi 


p 


<1 


H 


<1 


C3 


1 


$594 77 


$47, 937 13 


.$17, 475 11 


.$66,406 36 


.$131, 818 60 


$132, 413 37 


$8, 113, 590 09 


o 




5, 131 02 




5, 026 37 


10, 157 39 


10, 157 39 


639, 234 35 


3 










1, 430, 923 74 


4 




1615 86 






615 86 


615 86 


3, 358, 151 99 


5 




n 


(*) 


(*) 


(*) 


(*) 


104, 262 15 




594 77 


53, 684 01 


17,475 Hi 71,432 73 

1 


142, 591 85 


§143, 186 62 


13, 646, 162 32 



15 



Eecapitulation of tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.— Continued. 

CTTYTVr A T?V 



SUMMARY 







acts 
e at 
egal 
pub- 
ini- 
thin 
cies. 


•ill 






1874, of conti 
ere incomplel 
hen existing 1 
the board of 
coni])lete the 
streets and wi 
forcontingen 


ill 

o'Bs 






o^ti'-SBS-s 


" '" s 








IIJ 




> 


wmi 


5:s^ 






§'rg':;:SH 


S^-5 


IS" umber of table. 


,i4 


ing fi 
lie wo 
ecogni 
lie gen 
k ther 
lese p 
lets. 






C 

.2 
'o 


muii 


10 work from Tiint 
ling the additional 

rs, and the cost of 
oard contracts. 


• 




ost 
sion 
and 
s, in 
tog 
tsin 
cove 






+^ 


« a o' 9 of s «= 


-^^.a ^ 




1 


s^r K^ ^ c o 






S 


i§5'§;a^a 


t-ial 


. 


. 5 


m 


<1 


1 


$3, 624, 595 09 
74, 941 98 

1, 430, 923 74 

2, 548, 291 90 


$4, 648, 407 41 
460, 121 49 


$4, 488, 995 00 


2 


564, 292 37 










809. 860 09 


g 




104, 262 15 












7, 678, 752 71 


5, 108, 528 90^ 


5, 967, 409 61 


Deduct cost of repairs undernintli section of con- 








809, 860 09 




Deduct co.st of work upon main sewers, necessary 




for their protection aud preservation, and that 






of adjacent improvements 


316, 806 06 




Deduct material on hand as asset 




104, 262 15 









Total deduction 


1, 230, 928 30 


1, 230, 928 30 








4,736,481 31 




5, 108, 528 90 










372, 047 59 







* Included in above. 

t Miscellaneous work. Cash cost, with 20 per cent, profit expressed in 3.65 bonds 
at seventy cents, as per terms of contract for these items, 

tThis is the value of material on hand, added to make up the total of expendi- 
tures aud liabilities. All of this, however, will be issued for the continuance of 
the work, aud the whole amount is hereinafter deducted as an asset. 

§ This is subiect to deduction on account of iiifeilor material or workmanship, 
upon tiual exaiuinatiou of the work. 



16 

l^OTE 1. Contracts fyad extejisions of board of public works recognized as being 
existing legal obligations on June 20, 1874, and extensions of the same by the com- 
missioners where the original contracts are those which have appeared in the printed 
lepoits of the late boaid of public works. 

Note 2. Contracts and extensions of board of public works recognized as being 
existing legal obligations on June 20, 1874, and extensions of the same by the com- 
missioners where the original contracts are those which have not appeared in the 
printed reports of the board of public works. 

Note 3. Contracts and extensions of board of public works, on which measure- 
ments have been made under the direction of the engineer of the District of Co- 
lumbia, and at the request of the board of audit, theVork having been completed 
under the board of public works. 

Note 4. Expeniiitures for repairs of contract work under section 9 of the original 
contracts where the cost is to be collected by suit from the contractor or his sure- 
ties. 

Note 6. Statement of material on hand July 8, 1874, received and issued since 
that time, and now remaining on hand. 

REMARKS. 

The comparison which is made between the footings of the last two columns of 
the '•Summary" will be better understood with the following explanation: In the 
work done by the commissioners up to this date, the original plans of the board of 
public work.s have, in some instances, been modified so as to substitute a better 
class of work, thereby increasing the cost ; as in the case of the sea-walls of the 
James Creek Canal, the pavement of the carriage-way of Maryland avenue south- 
west, and the foot-walks of the same avenue northeast, while the parking has gen- 
erally been dispensed with and the grading materially reduced. No account is 
taken of the incidental saving to public and private jproperty in the future im- 
provement of intersecting and adjacent streets in consequence of the, reduced 
amount of grading, although this is considerable. On the other hand, in'the com- 
putation of the estimates for the perfection of the board work (column next the 
last) the general plans of the board of public works have in tome cases been taken 
as a euide where the contract seemed inconsistent with them ; as in the case of 
Maryland avenue northeast, where gravel foot-walks were provided because the 
board of public works were unable to purchase bricks for their paper; and upon 
the same avenue southwest, where a blue-rock pavement was provided for the 
carriage-way, although this class of pavement has been condemned and replaced 
by other pavements on less important streets, and that of Belgian blocks for the 
avenue was in harmony with the general plan of improvement. In such cases, of 
which there are very few, the increased expenditure under the commissioners is 
offset in the column of estimates being included in it. But where the modification 
was not in accordance with the plans of the board of public works, as in the case 
of the change in the character of the sea-walls of the James Creek Canal, the in- 
creased cost is not included in that estimate. To these estimates, as made at board 
rates for each class of work, according to its measurement, is added here the usual 
percentage for engineering work of this description. 

"Work remaining incomplete under contracts canceled in pursuance of the joint 
resolution of Congress approved March 14, 1876, and the circular-letters of the com- 
missioners, of September 30, 1875, and February 5, 1876, is as follows: 

First. Work under contracts not otherwise forfeitable than in pursuance of the 
joint resolution of Congress approved March 14. 1876, and the previous circular- 
letters of the commissioners of September 30, 1875, and February 5, 1876, (with 10 
per cent, for contingencies,) = 1242,949.29. 

Second. "Work under contracts of doubtful oliligation in other respects, the com- 
missioners having terminated the work under the terms of the contracts, under the 
advice of counsel, (with 10 per cent, for contingencies,) = $210,244.52. 

See explanation of tables in text of engineer's report accompanying this. 

The report of the majority of the committee, submitted by myself, 
shows a large rediictiou in the bonded debt since the District com- 
missioners, have been in power to the amount of a million and a half 
and more, the greater proportion of which has been paid from th^ rev- 
enues of the District and not out of congressional appropriations. It 
also shows that the number of employes has been reduced from three 
hundred and seventy-one to one hundred and thirty-three, and that 
the reduction in expenditure on account of salaries has been over 
1288,000 annually. The report also shows, and such is the proof, that 
the financial affairs of the District generally have been managed with 
great care and to the manifest interest of the District and the Gov- 



17 



crnment, for all wbicli neither the minority report submitted by Judge 
BuCKNER nor his speech utters a single Avord of commendation. 

I desire now to call the attention of the House to the facts as de- 
veloped by the testimony and upon which the report submitted by 
myself is based, and shall show in the same connection that there is 
no foundation either in fact or theory for such a report as has been 
submitted by Judge Buckner, and hence no foundation whatever or 
cause even for the delivery of such a speech as his upon this subject. 
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Buckner] attempts to show, not 
only by his report and speech but by the conclusions of the joint com- 
mittee of 1874, that the 3.65 bonded indebtedness of thisDistrict should 
not at this time exceed the sum of about $10,000,000, and he main- 
tains, consequently, that the commissioners have contracted a debt 
without authority of law and wrongfully to the amount of four mill- 
ion dollars and over for which 3.65 bonds have been issued. He 
takes as the basis of his calculation the sum of $10,006,514.66, which, 
as he says, is made up of the following items : 



Actual issue and estimate, 
December 1, 1874. 



Certificates 
issued and 
una d just- 
ed claims. 



Total. 



Sewer certificates 

Sewer certificates outstanding and unadjusted. . 

Auditor's certificates, board of public works ... 
Auditor's certificates, board of public works, 
outstanding and unadjusted. 

Auditor's and comptroller's certificates of Dis- 
trict of Columbia 

Contract work, certified 

Contract work, unadjusted and outstanding 



General claims against the District, certified. . . 
General claims against the District, outstanding 

and unadjusted 

Old material, property, not issued 

Damages to real property, certified 

Damages to real proiiei-tj*, outstanding and unad- 

j usted 



Sewer taxes refunded, certified 

Sewer taxes, outstanding and unadjusted. 



$898, 942 29 
204, 600 00 


4, 170, 030 63 
314, 113 89 




1, 088, 757 84 
1, 458, 358 99 


82, 547 43 
297, 797 09 


Estimate . . . 
84, 689 57 

383, 996 50 


531, 862 36 
25,826 16 



$1, 103, 542 29 

4, 484, 144 52 
1, 897 06 

2, 547, 116 83 



380, 344 .52 
463, 094 85 



468, 686 07 
557, 688 52 



Total 



10, 006, 514 66 



Now, the gentleman admits that the 3.65 debt should be the above 
amount, but in order to obtain this amount he is compelled to allow 
as correct the sum of $2,547,116.83 which was expended entirely for 
work on contracts, and extensions of the same, of the old board of pub- 
lic works. The joint select committee reported, June 16, 1874, that 
$1,325,000 would complete all these contracts, while December 7, the 
same year, the commissioners had expended and found due on these 
contracts the sum of $2,547,116.83. This, Mr. Buckner says, is right. 
Now, this is the point. He claims the wheels of government should 
have stopped with the making of the report of December 7, 1874. 
This was impossible. Congress did not provide as was expected a 
2 HE 



IS 

new government, and on the 4th of Marcli adjourned leaving- the com- 
missioners still in poAver with no change of law regarding their duties. 
On December 7, 1874, the date of their report, they had recognized 
ninety-nine contracts of the late board of public works as existing 
legal obligations on the 20th of June, 1874. At the date of the report 
work was progressing on some or all of them. Could it be stopped ? 
Certainly not. Congress was the only power that could interfere. It 
was in session and took no action. Not only this, during the same 
session Congress passed a joint resolution continuing the board of 
audit until otherwise provided by law, and on the loth of February, 
1875, and during the same session, the board of audit reported that 
there had been presented for work done on these contracts since the 
date of their last report, December 7, 1874, claims to the amount of 
$706,776.54. This report also said : " This class includes the continu- 
ation by the commissioners of work under old contracts " which had 
not been fully completed prior to the change of the District govern- 
ment, and it also stated that additions would l)e made to class 4 by the 
continuation of work under old contracts. 

Thus it will be seen that as late as February 15, 1875, and twenty 
days before Congress adjoui'ned, Congress had full and official notice 
that work was still x)rogressing on these contracts, and that the in- 
debtedness under class 4 was being continually and daily increased ; 
but it took no action, and it must be assumed fairly that Congress 
approved or acquiesced in the management of the commissioners 
and board of audit regarding District affairs. It certainly took no 
steps to prevent the further prosecution of the work. I desire f lu'ther 
to state in this connection that the engineer reported on the 7th of 
December, 1874, that the cost to comijlete contracts resumed at that 
date payable in 3.65 bonds would be $1,721,270.11. Now, taking- 
Judge Buckner's basis of §10,006,514.66 as the 3.65 debt December 7, 
1874, he certainly must admit that that amount should be increased 
by the sum of ,$1,721,270.11, as those contracts were completed and 
that sum was ex^iended, and he does not question the validity of 
these contracts or the right of the commissioners to complete them 
and to pay in 3.65 certificates or bonds. 

My friend has heretofore claimed that the $1,721,270.11 reported as 
the cost to finish contracts was a part of or was included in the 
810,006,514.66. To put this question forever at rest, I will submit at 
this point a communication from the board of audit : 
To the commissioners of the District of Columbia : 

The statement in the report of the board of audit of December 7. 1874, (Executive 
Document, part 6, Forty-third Cougress, secoud session, page •2i)5,) is contiued ex- 
clusively to claims of class 4. 

The aggregate of claims as there given is $2,896,537.78. This was the actual 
amount of the claims of this class which had been presented and tiled at the date 
to which that report was made up and is given in the report as "claims presented." 
Of this amount the board of audit had at that date issued certificates to the amount 
of 81.0c<8, 757.84, and there had been withdrawn and disallowed $349,421.05; total 
acted upon, $1,438,178.89 ; leaving the balance unadjusted .$1,458,358.89, of which sum 
S56, 166.24 was for percentages retained on accounts for contract work which had 
been allowed and certified. 

It further appears from the report that this balance unadjusted did not include a 
large number of measurements for work then done which had been made by the 
engineer and returned to the board of audit too late to be adjusted and included in 
the report. 

If it is possible that there can be any question it may bo stated distinctly that 
neither the$l,088,757.84of certificates issued nor the $1,458,358. 89 of unadjusted claims 
included the sum of $1,721,270.11, or .any part thereof, which is found reported as the 
engineer's estimate at that time of the cost of completing resumed contracts ; neither, 
cf course, could it have included any claim which had not then actually accrued or 
tor work thereafter to be done. 



19 

The recapitulation on page 268 goes no further. 

The amount of certificates issued of all classes $G, 858, 727 18 

Claims outstanding and unadjusted 3, 147, 787 48 

Total 10,006,504 66 

The latter covers nothing except claims which had then been presented, filed, 
and registered, but it is accompanied by the statement tliat " by a continuance of 
work under contracts, No. 4 will be nltimately increased." 

It should be remembered that, subsequent "to this report. Congress extended the 
time for filing claims of all classes, and also provided for the presentation and audit 
of claims not within the original jurisdiction of the board of audit, and the amount 
of the claims was thereby largely increased, and this of course would make an es- 
timate of the actual ultimate indebtedness made prior to such action almost value- 
less. 

The report of the board of audit of December 7, 1874, states that claims had 
been audited for work done un,der the commissioners, and that such work was still 
in progress, and it very clearly appears that the estimate submitted of tlie "ascer- 
tained debt of the District" was not intended as more than an approximate state- 
ment, and that estimate, so far as it relates to class 4, does not include any indebt- 
edness except for work actually done or claimed to have been done prior to the date 
to which the report was made iip. 

The commissioners did not advise the board of audit at any time, officially, as to 
the work they intended to do ; and no report of the board of 'audit embraced in the 
figures given any estimate of work to be done by the commissioners. The figures 
used by the board of audit included only the work tliat had been done, with the .state- 
ment that by a continuance of work class 4 would be increased, 

Pv. W. TAYLER. 
J. M. BEODHEAD. 

June 12, 1876. 

Now, sir, taking. Judge Buckner's figures as abasis, namely, S10,006,- 
514.66, and adding $1,721,270.11 which was expended to complete the 
ninety-nine contracts in progress December 7, 1874, and we have 
$11,727,784.77. Now, it will be observed that at this time only ninety- 
nine contracts had been recognized by the commissioners as legal ex- 
isting obligations upon which work had been resumed. Since that 
date there have been sixty-foiu' additional contracts of the board of 
public works recognized, upon which large amounts of work have 
been done. Now, these sixty-four contracts were of the same char- 
acter and of the same legal force as the ninety-nine contracts, and 
if it was proper under the law to recognize and resume work under 
the ninety-nine contracts, and this Judge Buckxer admits, it cer- 
tainly was competent for the commissioners to recognize and resume 
work upon the sixty- four additional contracts. 

In the report of the commissioners for 1875, submitted December 1 
of that year, the engineer reports that sixty-four additional con- 
tracts of the board of public works have been recognized as existing 
legal obligations, which, with the amounts to cover work considered 
necessary, will further increase the cost by $2,146,.5o0.86. He also 
states that the repair of contract work since the last report has cost 
$666,123.12; so that in fact the 3.65 debt on the 1st of December, 
1875, would be made up as follows : 

Amount December 5, 1874, as per report fio, 006, 514 66 

Estimated cost of completing ninety-nine contracts resumed at that 

date ^ 1 7.31 270 11 

Repairs of contract work since that date 666.' 123, 13 

Cost of sixty-four additional contracts resumed since that date. . . .' 2, 146,' 580' 86 

Total 14,540,488 76 

This $14,540,488.76 does not represent the full amount payable in 
3.65 bonds, as the board of audit has audited and allowed claims un- 
der their jurisdiction ha\ing no reference to contracts of the board of 
public works recognized by the commissioners. I am quite certain, 



20 

yes, I have no doubt of it, Mr. Speaker, that I have established the 
fact by the j)roof and the record that the calculations, figures, and 
theory of my friend from Missouri in regard to the 3,65 indebtedness 
are entirely incorrect and worthless. But to go back : The gentleman 
from Missouri has said much in regard to the action and findings of 
the joint select committee, and has based his calculations mainly upon 
the conclusions arrived at in the report of that committee. Now, sir, 
if it becomes clear that that committee was led into error or was not 
in possession of all and the necessary facts which would lead them to 
correct conclusions as to the probable debt of the District, it certainly 
was not the fault of the commissioners or the board of audit. That 
committee relied largely for its information upon the answer of Gov- 
ernor Shepherd which was dated February 28, 1874. 

On page 14 of the report of that committee, under date June 16, 
1874, is an estimate of the amount of indebtedness that would prob- 
ably be funded in the 3.65 per cent, bonds then proj^osed by the com- 
mittee as a measure of settlement. 

This estimated amount is |8,305,886.59, and includes under the sec- 
ond item an estimate of "amount due or to become due on incomxjiete 
contracts," amounting to |il,325,000. 

Observe, this amount included work already done or to he done to 
complete contracts. Now in fact the board of audit has audited an 
amount of $1,717,000 — I use round numbers — and the commissioners 
have paid in cash to laborers of contractors $75,000 ; making in all an 
amount of $1,792,000 paid for work actually done prior to June 20, 
1874, and for which payment was 'actually due at the very moment 
the joint select committee made its report and presented its estimate 
of $1,325,000 as the amount required to pay for work done or to be 
done on incomplete contracts. This amount of $1,792,000 does not* 
embrace one dollar expended under the commissioners. 

Where did the committee obtain this sum of $1,325,000 as the 
amount due or to become due on incomplete contracts? 

On page 465 of Governor Shepherd's answer under date of Febru- 
ary 28, 1874, will be found an " estimate of cost to complete contracts 
on which work has been begun or is in progress," the amount there 
given being $1,325,911.62. The contracts embraced in this estimate 
are enumerated and &re forty in number ! They are eml)raced between 
numbers 702 and 1032 of the series of contracts of the board of pub- 
lic works. Subsequent to the date of this estimate, namely, Febru- 
ary 28, 1874, and before June 20, 1874, the date of abolition of the 
board, sixty-seven contracts were signed, being numbers inclusive 1033 
to 1099! 

No estimate appears anywhere for the cost of work to be done under 
those sixty-seven contracts. 

Moreover, beginning with page 340 of this same anstver of Governor 
Shepherd, is a schedule of contracts of the board of public works, 
from No. 1 to 1032 inclusive, detailing or professing to detail the con- 
dition of work on each and every one of those ten hundred and thir- 
ty-two contracts, whether complete or incomi)lete, su8j)euded or aban- 
doned. 

As a matter of fact, when the commissioners took charge of the 
District affairs July 8, 1874, work was found to be actually in progress 
upon many of these contracts enumerated in the schedule as complete, 
suspended, or abandoned. 

In the estimate of Governor Shepherd nothing is included for work 
to be done on any but the forty contracts enumerated by him, and it 
is evident that the committee was led to suppose those forty contracts 



21 

were all tlie existing, valid, incomplete contracts, and all on wlikli 
work would at any time be done. 

On page four of the report of the joint select committee reference 
is made to this estimate of Governor Shepherd, in which it is stated, 
"He also submitted a list of contracts not yet completed, with the 
estimated cost of the completion of the work under them, amounting 
in all to $1,325,911.62." It would seem, therefore, that the committee on 
June 16, 1874, the date of itsreport, considered the contracts included 
in that estimate to be all the coniracts on which work was tlien being 
done or would thereafter he clone, and that the amount of $1,325,000 
would embrace all due or to become due on incomplete contracts 
from and after the date of the governor's answer, namely, February 
28, 1874. 

It is clear, too, that the committee, in its estimate (on page 14 of 
its report) of the amount of indebtedness that might be funded in the 
3.65 per cent, bonds, quoted from the answer of the governor, which 
applied only to the forty contracts. There is no intention to attack or 
to unfavorably criticise the estimates of the committee, but to show 
that the committee was not advised as to the facts in the case. It 
does not api^ear to have been aware of the existence of the sixty-seven 
contracts made subsequent to the date of Governor Shepherd's answer, 
and the committee could not well be aware of the progress of work 
on other contracts reported in the answer as complete, abandoned, or 
suspended, nor on any other existing contracts, unless the fact was 
brought to its attention. My object is to show that the estimated 
amount of indebtedness was wholly unreliable. As an evidence, there 
has been actually paid, as an amount already due on incomplete con- 
tracts on the 20th of June, 1874, the sum of $1,792,000, or about half 
a million of dollars in excess of the estimate of what was due and to 
become due. In round numbers, about $10,000,000 has been audited by 
the board of audit as the indebtedness of the District on June 20, 
1874, and fundable into 3.65 per cent, bonds under the act of that 
date, Avhich amount of $10,000,000 includes nothing for work done 
under the commissioners. As a matter of fact, the commissioners 
have recognized one hundred and forty-six contracts instead of forty 
as valid existing contracts on June 20, 1874, and they have done 
work under the ninth article of seventeen contracts to a large 
amount, for the recovery of which amount suits are instituted or be- 
ing instituted against the contractors and their bondsmen. 

At this point I will publis-h a statement or table showing just what 
the debt was June '20, 1874, and the error fallen into by the joint 
committee in its estimate : 

1. Auditors' certificates, amount certified ?4, 300, 600 94 

2. Contracts due prior to June 20,1874 1,788,258 54 

3. Damages 827,625 68 

4. Sewer certificates 1, 035, 385 24 

5. Sewertax 552,784 60 

8, 594, 655 00 

Amount certified, class 3 1, 897 06 

Amount certified, class 5 385, 869 25 

Amount certified, class 6 151, 551 69 

Bowen claim 1, 463 58 

Due June 20. 1874, as certified by board of audit 9, 135, 436 58 

Not presented, class 1 87,350 00 

Not presented, class 2 15, 160 15 

Not audited, class 2 589 29 

Not audited, class 5, 314 00 

Outstandino-, class 8 4,938 48 



22 

Not autlited, class 4.. 43,610 57 

Audited and certitied or to be certified to commissioners, class C 199, 377 09 

Not oirtitied and outstanding, class 6 116, 611 72 

Paid tor labor by commissioners 74,782 65 

Total indebtedness June 20, 1874 9,678,170 53 

Committee's estimate, including incomplete contracts 8, 305, 886 59 

Excess of actual indebtedness 1,372,283 94 

The above is tbe statement I made to you in January last, corrected in accordance 
with the subsequent action of board of audit, and I believe it to be substantially 
correct. This does not include the $470,000 sewer bonds redeemed by commissioners. 

SAM. M. WILCOX, 
Late Assistant Accountant Board of Audit. 
Ju>^E 6, 1876. 

Now, I desire in this counection to state f urtlier tliat the cost of tlie 
completion of tlie forty-seven contracts resumed after December 5, 
1874, and of all extensions or modifications of the one hundred and 
forty-six contracts on which work has been resumed at any time by 
the commissioners is only $1,938,338.39. This information has been 
furnished me by the commissioners of the District, and I have no doubt 
of its reliability. 

I will now, Mr. Speaker, discuss a little further the question of ex- 
tensions and modifications of contracts which seems so much to annoy 
my friend from Missouri. I have heretofore shown, I think, that the 
commissioners had power under the law to make modifications and 
extensions of contracts. Now, as to the expediencj^ of making them 
there can be no doubt from these considerations : 

First. It saved money to the District ; and, 

Second. It is shown by the facts that the work done under these 
modifications and extensions would prove to be of far greater value 
to the District than the work contemplated by the original contracts. 
The modifications consisted largely and almost entirely in transferring 
work from one street to another street or locality, or in the change of 
grade, or in the amount and kind of work to be performed. The corh- 
missioners of the District when considering a contract, if they became 
satisfied that the work if done would be of little or no real value to 
the District on account of location or for other good cause and the 
contractor demanded the right to proceed under his contract, invari- 
ably secured such a modification as would transfer the work to a lo- 
cality where the same was actually needed and would result in im- 
mediate and permanent benefit to the District. 

In this course I think the commissioners are to be commended, as 
when they came into power they found the streets and avenues in a 
very deplorable condition ; streets graded, with no pavements ; side- 
walks, curb-stones torn up or partially laid, and this in many instances 
in the most populous i)ortions of the city and where there were no 
contracts for completion. And in order to j)ut these streets, avenues, 
and sidewalks in a proper condition for use, I maintain it was their 
duty to make such modifications and extensions as would transfer 
work to these localities where it was so much needed. 

Upon this question the commissioners in their answer to interro- 
gatories of the committee use the following language, and in it is a 
full answer also to the charge made by Judge Buckni<:r, that certain 
work might have been done for less price than was paid for it. 

Upon The recommendation of the engineer, who has under the law control and 
charge of the work of repair and improvements, we have modified many of the 
contracts as the jmblic interest and necessities of administration required. These 
modifications consisted sometimes in the substitution of one kind of work for an- 
other ; of woik in one localitj- for that contracted for in another; of a diminution of 



23 

work uuder contracts whou such (liminution was practicable, aud the work could 
be dispeused with : of additional work considered necessary and important and m 
other matters of detail. All these will fully appear in each case in tables 1 
and 2 accompanvins; the enaineer's report. The cost of these modifications is 
.stated in detail "in these tables. For some years past these modifications have 
been known in this District under the teclnucal name of " extensions, which term 
has been accepted by contractors and others, and is m common use. It does not 
necessarily imply an increase of work, but desi-iuates all modifications of contract, 
whether bv enlar^iement or diminution of the work in the original letter of the con- 
tract or change of kind or localitv. The extension has been given to the original 
contractor, except when it has been given to some third party by virtue of section 
5 of the contracts used by the .board of public works, when it considered the con- 
tractor as delaying unuecessarilv the work or A^illfully violating his contract, to 
employ other parties to finish it at the expense of the contractor, or by virtue ot 
section 9 of said contracts, which obliged the contractor to keep Ms work in repair 
for a limited period, generallv three years, and empowered the board of public 
works upon the contractor's failure to so keep his work in repair after due notifi- 
cation of Its defective condition to make the repairs at the expense of said con- 
tractor, and except, also, in the case of the approval by the commissioners ot the 
assignment to other parties of his right by the contractor. , , , ^ i 

We know of but one case in which parties other than the contractor have oflered 
to perform a contract at a less price than the sum named m it. The ofter was in- 
foi-mal in every resnect. The circumstances attending it have been fully explained 
in the evidence taken before your committee ; it related to a contract for Eleventh 
street east which had been made with James Walsh, who had assigned it to Will- 
iam Hussey. An oral otter was made to a former member of this commission to do 
the work at a less rate than the terms of the contract. The commissioners had no 
authoritv to repudiate the existing contract in favor of the applicant. A proposi- 
tion in waiting was received for resurfacing concrete pavements at a lower rate 
than the price required by the terms of the contract already made for this work. 
But even if the commissioners had not been called upon to repudiate an existuig 
contract for the pm-pose of accepting the offer, the bad character of the former 
work of the party making the ofi"er, and the fact that he did not control either one 
of the two patents acceptable to the engineer for the concrete pavement, would have 
prevented its acceptance. We have recently heard that it is claimed that one Lang- 
don made us an ofl:er to do for nothing the repairs required on the work of Charles 
E. Evans, or the Evans concrete company. No such otter was made to us ; we un- 
derstand that a casual remark about an otter to repair was made by Mr. Langdon 
in a conversation with the engineer, and that he was invited by that officer to put 
his off'er in writing ; with this Mr. Langdon did not comply, but ottered, as we are 
advised, soon after in writing, to the engineer to do the work for pay. He made, 
however no allusion to any intention to repair the work of other contractors at his 
own expense. We are informed that at the time when it is claimed that tlie oiler 
was made Mr. Langdon was suing Mr. Evans for an amount alleged to be due him 
on account of this work, and as the subsequent expenditures on accomit of the re- 
pairs on the Evans contract exceeded .f;200,000, we think it unnecessary to make 
further comment on the i^retended otter.' 

The gentleman from Missouri lias commented npon the acts of the 
commissioners in the purchase of sewer-pipe. Upon this subject they 
say in their answer that — 

Two contracts were made after due advertisement fora limited quantity of sewer- 
pipe The pay was to be in cash. These contracts are Xos. 13 and 15, new series, 
and are mentioned in table Xo. 5 of the engineer's report. They were subsequently 
canceled by mutual consent, and the pending orders uuder them annulled. It was 
not intended at the time these contracts were made to use the pipes in connection 
with contracts of the board of public works, as the contractors were under obliga- 
tion to furnish their own material, but experience demonstrated that in order to 
secure good material, particularly that which was to be placed uuder ground, 
chiefly sewer-pipe, it was necessary that the engineer should furnish the pipe to 
the contractors. This course, therefore, was adopted by the commissioners on 
recommendation of the engineer, and orders of the late board of public works were 
extended to include the material required for the completion of the work m hand. 
No additional expense was incurred in conse(iuence of these contracts or orders, a,s 
the new material was issued to the contractors at the actual cost in part payment 
of the Avork performed ; it was in every case charged to them upon report ot the 
engineer by the board of audit in the settlement of their account. This course was 
a«ceptable*to the contractors, because it enabled them to secure materia] of quality 
good enough to pass a thorough inspection at a lower rate than they could pur- 
chase the material of commerce in open market. This method of doing business, 
in our opinion, better protected the interests of the District, and entailed upon it 



24 

no additional cost for the work. The reoomniendation of the engineer was not 
adopted until after we had brought the matter to the attention of the board of audit 
and ascertained that in their view there was no legal objection to their auditing the 
accounts. The itemized statement called for will be found in table No. 6, engineer's 
report, transmitted herewith. 

It would seem from this that this proceediug entailed no cost upon 
the District, but was beneficial, as it secured good material, and what- 
ever its cost might have been it was charged up to the contractors. 
It made no difference whether the commissioners paid the contractor 
or other parties for this pipe. 

Again, one of the remarkable admissions made by the honorable 
gentleman from Missouri is that nearly twenty miles of streets were 
improved during the year 1875 by the District commissioners in ad- 
dition to the streets covered by the contracts of the board of public 
works. Taking this conceded fact in connection with the fact that 
the test in favor of the commissioners' work, as shown in the total 
cost -at page 143 of the commissioners' answer to the interrogatories, as 
compared with that of the board of public works, was |37'2,047.09, 
we think the commissioners could ask no higher compliment to the 
official ability of their administration. But this is no more than the 
commissioners can honestly claim under the facts as presented by the 
evidence. 

It is proper, however, that I should add as a still further evidence 
of his reckless statements and disregard of the facts and testimony, 
that on nearly one-half of the streets he enumerates no work what- 
ever has been done by the commissioners, and, where indispensably 
necessary to be done, the work was given in lieu of other work taken 
from the contractor and for which he could hold the District respon- 
sible, and was strictly in pursuance of the second section of the act 
of June 20, 1874. And, furthermore, nearly all the work undertaken 
has been completeck 

Another matter to which the gentleman has referred with much 
feeling and upon which he comments at some length is the work done 
by way of repairs of contract Avork, which amounts in all to the sum 
of .f809,000. He characterizes this expenditure as the most inexcus- 
able and reprehensible of all the acts of the commissioners, and says 
their construction of the law and the contracts in this regard is an 
insult to ordinary intelligence. Now the section in the contract under 
which this work was done is as follows : 

Ninth. It is further agreed that if at any time during the period of years 

from the completion of this contract any part or parts thereof shall become defective 
from improper material or construction and in the opinion of the said party of the 
first part require repair, the said party of the second part will, on being notified 
thereof, immediately commence and complete the same to the satisfaction of the 
party of the first part ; and in case of failure or neglect of the said party of the 
second part so to do, the same shall be done under the direction and orders of the 
party of the first part at the expense of the party of the second part. 

Under this article in the contracts, and it was in all of them, the 
commissioners in accordances with its terms where work was defect- 
ive gave notice to the parties to put the defective parts in repair, and 
on their failure to comply tlie commissioners would repair the work 
and charge it to the contractor. The words used are : 

And in case of failure or neglect of the said party of the second part so to do, the 
same shall be done under the direction and orders of the party of the first part, at 
the expense of the party of the second part. 

Now I maintain that as a matter of law the District could have no 
claim for the cost of such repairs until they were first completed. A 
suit for damages could not lie before the work was done, because the 



amount to be recovered nuist be its cost, and the language declares 
that the work shall be done by the x^arty of the first part and at the 
expense of the party of the second part. It seems to me there can 
be no question about this. Now there is no pretension that it was 
not necessary to do this work or that it has not been done economic- 
ally. But, says the gentleman, the commissioners had no right to pay 
for this work in 3.65 bonds. 

Under the head of fourthly in the sixth section of the act of June 
20, 1874, the auditors are authorized to audit claims "existing or here- 
after created for which no evidence of indebtedness has been issued 
arising out of contracts, written or oral, made by the board of public 
works." 

Now, it strikes me that there can be no question that these claims 
ai'ose out of contracts and that they belong to that class which can 
fairly be said to be created after the 20th of June, 1874, for which no 
evidence of indebtedness had been issued, and that it was perfectly 
proper to pay for this work in 3.65 bonds; certainly when vre con- 
template the fact that no other means were provided by the law or 
otherwise for the payment of such work. For all the money thus ex- 
pended suits have been brought in favor of the District, and I have 
no doubt will be prosecuted to a successful termination. So that in 
fact there will be no loss to the District on account of this expendi- 
ture. 

In the report submitted by Mr. Buckner he says : " We do not 
question the power and duty of the commissioners to make these re- 
pairs under the authority to protect and preserve improvements, com- 
plete and incomplete, but the work of repair must be paid for in cash, 
and not in bonds," while in his speech he takes the ground virtually 
that they had no right to make these repairs under any authority. 
Now, let us see. The law says that the commissioners may make and 
incur such obligations and contracts as may be necessary to the faith- 
ful administration of the valid laws enacted for the government of 
said District, to the execution of existing legal obligations and con- 
tracts, and to the protection and preservation of improvements existing or 
commenced and not completed at the time of the passage of this act. 

Now, the only means provided for paying for any of this class of 
work or indebtedness was the 3.65 bonds. If Congress had intended 
otherwise, it would have made an appropriation for that purpose. 
Congress did, in the act of June 20, 1874, provide money for District 
purposes by taxation, and also provided in section 4 of that act that 
the sums collected from taxation should be distributed, one-fourth to 
re-imburse the United States for its advances on account of interest 
which shall have been paid by the United States on the funded debt 
of the District of Columbia and Washington and Georgetown, due 
and payable July 1, 1874, and the remainder shall be used to pay de- 
ficiencies in the various funds for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1874 ; 
and all the remainder of said taxes not required for the aforesaid pur- 
poses shall be distributed for the purposes and in the proportion pro- 
vided by the act of the Legislative Assembly of the District of Co- 
lumbia approved June 26, 1873, entitled ''An act imposing taxes for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1874," so far as said apportionment is 
not inconsistent with this act. Now, the law of June 20, 1874, must 
be construed as a whole, and not by sections, and when thus construed 
there can be no doubt that Congress intended that every debt legally 
incurred under the act by the commissioners should be paid in 3.65 
bonds, except where specific ajipropriations were made. In this view 
I am fully sustained by lions. Ly.max K. Bass, .J. M. Wilson, and J. 



26 

A. IIuBBELL, members of the joint committee wliicli i^repared and 
presented to Congress tlie act of June 20, 1674, and I submit at tkis 
time what they say upon the subject : 

House ov Eepeesentatives, 

Washington, D. C, May 15, 1876. 

GENTLEJn<:\ : lu response to your inquiry of me as to my construction of certain 
provisions of the law of the last Congress approved June 20, 1874, providing for the 
government of the District of Columbia, and as to the intent of the joint commit- 
tee which framed that law, in adopting and recommending such provisions to the 
favorable action of Confess, I beg leave to say that I think the answer is clearly 
and unequivocally found in the law itself. I find no ambiguity in its expressions. 
The object of the committee and the object of Congress was to abolish the then 
existing government of this District, as it provided in section 1 of the act, and to 
establish in its place a temporary government to exercise its f mictions until a new 
permanent form of government could be matured and adopted. By section 2 of 
the act certain substantial powers theretofore vested in the governor and board of 
piiblic works were devolved on a commission to consist of three persons, under 
certain limitations. It was provided that they should make no contract nor incur 
any obligations other than such contracts and obligations as might be necessary to 
the faithful administiation of the valid laws enacted for the government of said 
District, to the execution of existing legal obligations and contracts, and to the 
protection or preservation of improvements existing or commenced and not com- 
pleted at the time of the passage of the act. 

Thus power to make contracts and incur obligations for those three specified pur- 
poses was conferred upon the new commissioners, to wit : 

First, For the purpose of administering the laws for the government of the 
District. 

Second. Tor the purpose of carrying out the lawful outstanding contracts of the 
District. 

Third. For the purpose of protecting and preserving existing improvements, or 
such as were commenced and were incomplete. 

Congress in the performance of its duty in the premises could not well have done 
less. Not to have given the commission power to incur obligations in the adminis- 
tration of the laws, would have been equivalent to abolishing all government. 'Not 
to have conf ened power and authority to carry out the lawful outstanding contracts 
of the District, would have been an attempt to repudiate and abolish such con 
tracts in direct violation of the rights of citizens. The former government doubt 
less had the power to make valid contracts binding the District,'and as to such con 
tracts it was not sought to repudiate or annul them by legislative action. AH ques 
tions as to what were or were not lawful contracts were remitted to the commis 
sion, as were such other questions as pertained to the methods of execution. The 
commission for these purposes and others was the executive authority of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, and was vested with lawful executive discretion in the exercise 
of its duties, such as is possessed by all executive officers. And if Congress had 
not given the commission power to incur obligations necessary to take care of ex- 
isting property of the District, it would have been short-sighted indeed. 

On reading your answers to interrogatories of the committee, I do not see that 
your construction of the law is different from that hereinbefore stated. The 
means for the payment of the obligations which might be incurred in performing 
existing contracts were provided for in sections 6 and 7 of the law, by which it is 
seen that the board of audit were required to audit and settle "fourthly, claims ex- 
isting or hereafter created for which no evidence of indebtedness has been issued 
arising out of contracts written or oral made by the board of public works ;" and 
for the amount of such claim so audited the sinking-fund commissioners were au- 
thorizd to deliver the 3.6.5 bonds at par in a like sum. No other provision is made 
by the law for meeting such indebtedness, and none other was contemplated by 
the joint committee, for reasons which are fully set forth in their report. 

I believe the foregoing is a response to all your inquiries on this subject. 
I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully, 

LYMAN K. BASS. 

We have read the foregoing and concur in the views therein expressed. 

J. M. WILSON, 
JAY A. HTJBBELL. 

Houorables W. Dexxison, J. H. Ketcham, S. L. Phelps, 

Commissioners, d-c. 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say again that I look upon 
much of the speech of the cliairmanof the committee as uncalled for, 
unwise, and unfortunate. It exhibits that kind of animus and con- 



taiiis that kind of luijuwtilialjle insinuation and that want of candor 
and \\isdom which always weaken the efforts and greatly detract troui 
the excellence of the real statesman. I cannot think, sir, that the 
sentiments uttered by the honorable gentleman are shared in by his 
committee or a single member of it, and I will say, sir, that a major- 
ity of the committee have deliberately, with a full knowledge of the 
facts, declared that the ofdcers of the District are incorrupt, faithtul 
men, and have done their work well, and for the best interests of the 

li the theory of Judge Buckneris correct and the commissioners had 
carried it outj the District or 3.65 debt would to-day be thousands ot 
dollars more than it is. They found themselves in possession of or 
parties to one hundred and sixty-three contracts for different kinds 
of work, and had they carried them out to the letter— and the gen- 
tleman both in his report and speech admits they had the power to 
do this— the burden upon the District would be greater than now, 
and many streets would have been improved when there was no need 
of improvement, and many of the streets in the populous and busi- 
ness portion of the city would have been to-day almost impassible. 
Not only this, sir ; we would have had miles of short-lived wood 
pavements, when we now have durable concrete ; a step, if taken, that 
would ultimately have increased the burdens upon the people ot this 
District more than half a million of dollars. 

Again, sir, if the contracts had been performed as they came totJie 
hands of the commissioners, the damages to private property would 
have been a very large item, as all contracts required that the streets 
and avenues should be graded to the building line, while by the mod- 
ifications made the grading was confined to the width of the carriage- 
way and sidewalks, and by the modifications nearly all parking be- 
tween the sidewalks and the building lines was dispensed with, 
which was a saving of a large amount to the District. 

No, sir, this is the point : If the commissioners had carried out the 
contracts as they were written, which would have entailed larger 
debt and unnecessary work, then the gentleman from Missouri would 
have cursed these men for not exercising their discretion and better 
iudgment. He would have been dissatisfied any way. If they had 
not made the improvement or repairs which they have to preserve 
and protect property and the streets and avenues of the District, he 
then would have denounced them for having allowed property to go 
to waste and become useless. 

No, sir; these repuhUcan commissioners could not in any event have 
suited the gentleman from Missouri. There must be a campaign doc- 
ument arising out of this District investigation, and the gentleman 
has produced it ; but it will do no harm. It is not sustained by the 
proof nor by a majority of his committee. It must fail of its pur- 
pose. I have said his speech is unwise and unfortunate. It is de- 
cidedly so in this, that it has the tendency to injure the credit of the 
District. The District is not in its present condition by the fault ot 
the gentleman from Missoim nor by my fault, and it is our duty as 
members of Congress, and especially as members of the committee, to 
do all in our power to establish the credit of this District. The debt is 
about $22,500,000. Now, if the United States Government will pay 
its share, as it should do, owning more than one-half of the entire 
area of the territory here, the burden upon the District is not such 
as to impair its credit in the slightest. 

Again, sir, the people of the District are entirely willing to pay 
their full share of this debt. They will do so cheerfully ; and not only 



28 

this: they are amply able. We find occasionally a citizen who is cry- 
ing bankruptcy and that the District can never pay this debt ; but 
this should cause no alarm, as the cry comes from chronic grumblers 
and generally from parties who refuse to pay their taxes or assume 
their share of the burdens of government. 

I now consider District affairs to be in the best condition they 
can be, and firmly believe that the national capital has a promising 
future and that its credit is and always will be of that order which 
shall command the respect of the financial world. The investigation 
was for a i)urpose. The blow was aimed at the commissioners. It 
has failed of its mark and I have no hesitation in saying that these 
gentlemen as commissioners of the District have not only passed 
through the ordeal of a rigid investigation unscathed but have demon- 
strated the fact that the onerous and responsible duties committed to 
them have been honestly and judiciously performed, and with scru- 
pulous regard for the best interests of the District and country, and 
such is the opinion of a majority of your committee. The resolutions 
are not presented as an arraignment of the commissioners, as the 
gentleman from Missouri says, by a majority of the committee. They 
had no such intention whatever and believe there is no cause for 
action against them. 



X. 



'yVn- 



^^r^ 



mfu. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 369 587 6 



r:n^^%0^: 






■•^^ 






/-^i^ 



